The Problem of Islam

Wow, what an asshole. It sure all adds up now: a spoiled brat grows up to be a deluded arrogant douchebag. Islam is a very useful religion in that sense: it allows you to despise other people out of no reason than for them beeing infidels.

If you and the stooges I’ve come across on this forum (i.e. Aldrino, Aaron, Sander, Isocratic Infidel, and others) represent the typical infidel, then that alone is more than enough reason.

Why does it make you so angry that we won’t believe in your dogma?
If you would be consolated by your beliefs you could entertain yourself with the thought that we will burn in hell for that we laugh about you and your superstitious self-serving worldview?
Your irrational rage towards us is just another example for the stupefying force of your faith, that tells you that you should be elevated above all others just for having it.

You assume way too much if you think I’m angry at you for not believing in God. I wish you would, for your own sake, but its between you and your Maker. Secondly, I would be a horrible human being if I found consolation in the fact that you would be burning in hell. I want you to go to heaven, and to live a happy life on earth in the meantime. And that is the truth

Again, I have no “irrational rage” (simply, anger) towards anyone, except when you go out of your way to insult my beliefs, or when you act in ways that I cannot accept given what I believe about right and wrong. Of course, if you insist on insulting my faith, it might help me to be patient in my response to think that you will some day be punished for the harm that you do to me. And I believe that me thinking this way would not make me a horrible person. But in the end, I have no problems with you dying upon your disbelief, only I wish that you do not, but whether you do or don’t, is the will of God.

Again, I have no “irrational rage” (simply, anger) towards anyone, except when you go out of your way to insult my beliefs, or when you act in ways that I cannot accept given what I believe about right and wrong. Of course, if you insist on insulting my faith, it might help me to be patient in my response to think that you will some day be punished for the harm that you do to me. And I believe that me thinking this way would not make me a horrible person. But in the end, I have no problems with you dying upon your disbelief, only I wish that you do not, but whether you do or don’t, is the will of God.

So no irrational anger? Your behaviour says otherwise:

Sander, you are one ugly looking fellow. Why, in God’s name, do you insist on showing your face? Please, do the charitable thing and get a new pic, or face, or whichever. Thanks.

That is just low and pathetic. That your faith did not help you to be a moral person is very much visible here and at all those countless times you call people “idiots” or “freaks” for having a different opinion than you. For that alone you should be shuned by everybody in this forum.
Decency starts not with the topic you talk about (like “your faith”) but HOW you talk. Get used to disagreement you spoiled little wuss, if you think we do you harm stop talking to us and do something useful.
That you think we “insult” your faith is part of your sects brainwashing tools: you think you are in a world of enemies. This is not so, nobody here wants to personally harm you, further the people that insult Islam are not the atheists that laugh about its claims and rituals but rather its zealous adherents: people like Al Quaida that are famous for killing children and even destroying Mosques. Yes even you gave Islam a bad name: you go around and call yourself a true Muslim and than you insult people for no apparent reason (did you read that this is good in the Quran?). If you would value morality at all (and not just submission to your god) you would apologize to Sander and to us for that.

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
—Cultivating Humanity

Again, I have no “irrational rage” (simply, anger) towards anyone, except when you go out of your way to insult my beliefs, or when you act in ways that I cannot accept given what I believe about right and wrong. Of course, if you insist on insulting my faith, it might help me to be patient in my response to think that you will some day be punished for the harm that you do to me. And I believe that me thinking this way would not make me a horrible person. But in the end, I have no problems with you dying upon your disbelief, only I wish that you do not, but whether you do or don’t, is the will of God.

So no irrational anger? Your behaviour says otherwise:

Sander, you are one ugly looking fellow. Why, in God’s name, do you insist on showing your face? Please, do the charitable thing and get a new pic, or face, or whichever. Thanks.

That is just low and pathetic. That your faith did not help you to be a moral person is very much visible here and at all those countless times you call people “idiots” or “freaks” for having a different opinion than you. For that alone you should be shuned by everybody in this forum.

To understand my relationship with Sander, you need to go back and review the other posts. In any event, you are right. Being someone who knows better, I should not steep so low. But what about you? Should I excuse you for insulting my prophet because you don’t know any better? Let’s hope God and His messenger (peace be upon him) excuse your manners as well.

Decency starts not with the topic you talk about (like “your faith”) but HOW you talk. Get used to disagreement you spoiled little wuss, if you think we do you harm stop talking to us and do something useful.

You sound very preachy, and hypocritical. I hope that by exposing lies about Islam whenever I can on this forum will be considered useful to someone at some point. Even if one soul is benefited, then I will feel that I have done something useful.

That you think we “insult” your faith is part of your sects brainwashing tools: you think you are in a world of enemies. This is not so, nobody here wants to personally harm you, further the people that insult Islam are not the atheists that laugh about its claims and rituals but rather its zealous adherents: people like Al Quaida that are famous for killing children and even destroying Mosques. Yes even you gave Islam a bad name: you go around and call yourself a true Muslim and than you insult people for no apparent reason (did you read that this is good in the Quran?). If you would value morality at all (and not just submission to your god) you would apologize to Sander and to us for that.

Again, I have never insulted anyone out of the blue. Go and read the previous posts and you will come to see the truth of this. I have only insulted those who have been hostile towards my faith in some way, by calling my prophet unspeakable names for example, or mocking my faith as barbaric, and so forth. In any case, you are right, my religion teaches me to rise above such insults and not respond in kind. You know this, and so you are surprised by my bad ‘behavior’. Unfortunately, I am not a good Muslim.

But you, for your insults, are you a typical non-believer or ‘humanist’ as you call yourself, acting according to the dictates of your beliefs or lack thereof? Am I not to expect proper ettiquette from you because you lack religion? I think you, Sander, and many other atheists on this forum have already answered this question loud and clear.

Seeing that your atheism does not teach you how to behave, whereas my religion does, I don’t mind the double standard with which you reproach me.

Well, I did not expect an apology for you insulting Sander anyway. Your elusions show what you do best: swerving around the real issues, pitying yourself.
It shows your moral depravity: your dogma and the islamist propaganda diminished your sense for right and wrong as well as good manners. What normal person would think that saying something (be it even tasteless) about a guy that is dead for 1400 years and his babble equates or justifies attacking a fellow human beeing on the base of his looks?
It shows your deep insecurity dear J.S. and that you lost the argument, again.

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
—Cultivating Humanity

Well, I did not expect an apology for you insulting Sander anyway. Your elusions show what you do best: swerving around the real issues, pitying yourself.
It shows your moral depravity: your dogma and the islamist propaganda diminished your sense for right and wrong as well as good manners. What normal person would think that saying something (be it even tasteless) about a guy that is dead for 1400 years and his babble equates or justifies attacking a fellow human beeing on the base of his looks?
It shows your deep insecurity dear J.S. and that you lost the argument, again.

“Pitying yourself”? I don’t know what makes you think so.

Anyway, as I said, if you want to know what prompts my ‘attacking a fellow human being on the basis of his looks’, you need to go back and read the various threads and posts. Until you do so, I suggest you keep your bankrupt understanding of morality to yourself.

And remember, we are essentially monkeys according to you anyway such that your suggestion to treat a fellow monkey with any respect is no more worthy of listening to than say, the suggestion that we ought to put monkeys in cages. Ugly monkeys like Sander, and judging by your defense of him, yourself, ought to be in cages at the zoo.

Anyway, as I said, if you want to know what prompts my ‘attacking a fellow human being on the basis of his looks’, you need to go back and read the various threads and posts. Until you do so, I suggest you keep your bankrupt understanding of morality to yourself.
And remember, we are essentially monkeys according to you anyway such that your suggestion to treat a fellow monkey with any respect is no more worthy of listening to than say, the suggestion that we ought to put monkeys in cages. Ugly monkeys like Sander, and judging by your defense of him, yourself, ought to be in cages at the zoo.

Attacking a fellow human beeing for it’s looks is primitive and stupid, for the sole reason that a person has no control over that, as opposed to ridiculus and unjustified dumb believes. This is elementary, in all civilised countries we teach that to our kids in family and kindergarten.
Maybe your face is full of warts or you squint, or your a hunchback, I would still not make fun of you or insult you because of that (although when seeing a squinting, wartsy hunchback lecturing me about the quran I probably could not help to chuckle a bit).

The fact that mankind as a species are higher primates doesn’t imply that there are no morals. (A very stupid and reveling point to make anyway, shows your complete ignorance in matters of biology, geology etc. Again: read at least the discussions between the Darwinists and the Christian creationists to learn to make your argument better).
Anyway, apes and monkeys are certainly programmed to behave socially in a way that could be described as following a certain moral code. I do think humans have a certain limited moral programming too. That we, thanks to our brainpower have the freedom to act against it does just make it more obvious: there is morality because we need it.
That might not sound sufficient to you, but the fact that there (maybe) is not a final explanation for this question (yet), does not make your crazy unproven claims for “god given morals” or that “atheists are immoral” any more true.

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
—Cultivating Humanity

A born muslim living in a muslim country I can understand how Islam stifles creativity and progress with its oppressive 7th century philosophy.
It’s too bad that the objectivity and fairness that the West tries to show to this “religion” will end up being it’s death. Would you show the same to Nazism?
They will pull us all into the dark age!!

Anyway, as I said, if you want to know what prompts my ‘attacking a fellow human being on the basis of his looks’, you need to go back and read the various threads and posts. Until you do so, I suggest you keep your bankrupt understanding of morality to yourself.
And remember, we are essentially monkeys according to you anyway such that your suggestion to treat a fellow monkey with any respect is no more worthy of listening to than say, the suggestion that we ought to put monkeys in cages. Ugly monkeys like Sander, and judging by your defense of him, yourself, ought to be in cages at the zoo.

Attacking a fellow human beeing for it’s looks is primitive and stupid, for the sole reason that a person has no control over that, as opposed to ridiculus and unjustified dumb believes. This is elementary, in all civilised countries we teach that to our kids in family and kindergarten.

Hey dumb ass, how many times do I need to tell you that there are reasons why I’m making fun of Sander’s looks, not the least of which, because he actually is ugly. Thankfully, I think he knows it and that’s why he’s replaced his picture yet again, but this time with a demonic statue, which is at least in better taste. And people can control their looks. Sander’s face, for example, looks contorted, perhaps because he is drunk and angry. Were he to smile, perhaps he might pass as semi-human looking. His looks are a reflection of what lies beneath, his inner being, his mind, or whatever you call it in your incoherent materialistic thinking. As Jesus (peace be upon him) said, “a vessel can only give what it contains”.

Maybe your face is full of warts or you squint, or your a hunchback, I would still not make fun of you or insult you because of that (although when seeing a squinting, wartsy hunchback lecturing me about the quran I probably could not help to chuckle a bit).

Trust me, you have nothing to make fun of when it comes to me appearance or otherwise, Melvin. And you probably would chuckle at the Qur’an because you’re an idiot.

The fact that mankind as a species are higher primates doesn’t imply that there are no morals. (A very stupid and reveling point to make anyway, shows your complete ignorance in matters of biology, geology etc. Again: read at least the discussions between the Darwinists and the Christian creationists to learn to make your argument better).

Actually, as a matter of fact, atheist thinking has nothing to say about morality, purpose, or truth. I’ve read enough of the debate to see that. At least religion, Islam anyway, provides a solid framework of morality.

Anyway, apes and monkeys are certainly programmed to behave socially in a way that could be described as following a certain moral code. I do think humans have a certain limited moral programming too. That we, thanks to our brainpower have the freedom to act against it does just make it more obvious: there is morality because we need it.
That might not sound sufficient to you, but the fact that there (maybe) is not a final explanation for this question (yet), does not make your crazy unproven claims for “god given morals” or that “atheists are immoral” any more true.

“There (maybe) is not a final explanation for this [morality] question (yet)”, indeed. In the meantime, people need to live their life to the fullest, for its the only life we have. We can’t spend it disoriented all the time, not knowing right from wrong, benefical from harmful. The examples of the righteous are clear, and so are the examples of those who are not.

Atheist, you being a good example of such, like to criticize people’s belief systems and way of life without offering any alternative. Then again, this only to be expected from you. As I heard it once said, “I’ve never seen a man build what he could destroy”.

Again, religion at least provides a framework of morality which can be interpreted within limits. Atheism, on the other hand, by its very denying of any fundamental or higher truth, cannot propose such a framework. In a world with no meaning, why should the strong not oppress the weak?

As to whether this has any bearing on the truth of religion or not, I would say that indeed it does. All religions essentially preach a similar message. Most religions claim that a godly life is a happy one. The countless numbers of people who find happiness in their faith is proof of God’s claim being true.

Those who (in charity) spend of their goods by night and by day, in secret and in public, have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Al Bakarah

I have yet to meet any individual who understands and practices religion properly to suffer from depression and anxiety.

In any event, there are many claim’s that God makes that appear true. I could refute your previous posts about the Qur’an and science, if I bothered to look at them. Of course, given that you seem to me to be, like many atheists, a conspiracy theorist of the worst kind, all of such claims would be minimized by you as being the possible creation of man.

Actually, as a matter of fact, atheist thinking has nothing to say about morality, purpose, or truth. I’ve read enough of the debate to see that. At least religion, Islam anyway, provides a solid framework of morality.

First sentence: non-statement, a-theist means just non-godist we all know that (Sam Harris held a speech about it at the last AAI conference) if you would acctually read other things than your dumb apolgetics you would not make this pathetic point of strawmen argumentation.
The only point made by atheists relevant here: truth can only be established with factual evidence, there is no evidence for god, therfore the statement “god exists and wants us to hit our head on the floor 5 times a day” is untrue, a lie, lying is immoral too, as is insulting people like you do, you pathetic ill-mannered lout.
Solid framework for morality? You said in another post you would mutilate your child if “Islam” told you so, that is not moral at all.

The rest of your scribble is not even worth answering.

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
—Cultivating Humanity

Actually, as a matter of fact, atheist thinking has nothing to say about morality, purpose, or truth. I’ve read enough of the debate to see that. At least religion, Islam anyway, provides a solid framework of morality.

First sentence: non-statement, a-theist means just non-godist we all know that (Sam Harris held a speech about it at the last AAI conference) if you would acctually read other things than your dumb apolgetics you would not make this pathetic point of strawmen argumentation.

I know what atheist means thank you very much.

The only point made by atheists relevant here: truth can only be established with factual evidence, there is no evidence for god, therfore the statement “god exists and wants us to hit our head on the floor 5 times a day” is untrue, a lie, lying is immoral too, as is insulting people like you do, you pathetic ill-mannered lout.

The conclusions you make do not necessarily follow from your premises. That you cannot measure God does not mean He does not exist, nor does it mean that the claims of religion are lies.

Solid framework for morality? You said in another post you would mutilate your child if “Islam” told you so, that is not moral at all.

Right, with the understanding that religion, that is Islam, when viewed as a whole, has a good record for prescribing that which is beneficial for human beings. If it is not beneficial, it is not from Islam. Although, things may be beneficial, yet the benefits are not understood.

You either did not, or you tried some stupid sand-throwing again, otherwise you would not have made this strawmen “non-statement”

The conclusions you make do not necessarily follow from your premises. That you cannot measure God does not mean He does not exist, nor does it mean that the claims of religion are lies.

It is difficult to disprove “gods” existence, but it is even more difficult to prove to us that he is interested in us butting the rug 5 times a day. Those assertions are lies if you tell them as if they are true although you know you cannot prove them.

Solid framework for morality? You said in another post you would mutilate your child if “Islam” told you so, that is not moral at all.

Right, with the understanding that religion, that is Islam, when viewed as a whole, has a good record for prescribing that which is beneficial for human beings. If it is not beneficial, it is not from Islam. Although, things may be beneficial, yet the benefits are not understood.

To do evil like mutilating or raping a child (or selling it to some old fart for him to marry it) is always wrong, whatever apologies you might find for that in your holy books or how many good things are done at the same time. The ends do not justify all means.

The rest of your scribble is not even worth answering.

No fair. I always waste my time answering yours smile

No you don’t. I’m still waiting for your answer on Christoph Luxenbergs method and on other things. You cherry pick your questions like you cherry pick reality to make your religious worldview fit.

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
—Cultivating Humanity

You either did not, or you tried some stupid sand-throwing again, otherwise you would not have made this strawmen “non-statement”

The conclusions you make do not necessarily follow from your premises. That you cannot measure God does not mean He does not exist, nor does it mean that the claims of religion are lies.

It is difficult to disprove “gods” existence, but it is even more difficult to prove to us that he is interested in us butting the rug 5 times a day. Those assertions are lies if you tell them as if they are true although you know you cannot prove them.

Solid framework for morality? You said in another post you would mutilate your child if “Islam” told you so, that is not moral at all.

Right, with the understanding that religion, that is Islam, when viewed as a whole, has a good record for prescribing that which is beneficial for human beings. If it is not beneficial, it is not from Islam. Although, things may be beneficial, yet the benefits are not understood.

To do evil like mutilating or raping a child (or selling it to some old fart for him to marry it) is always wrong, whatever apologies you might find for that in your holy books or how many good things are done at the same time. The ends do not justify all means.

The rest of your scribble is not even worth answering.

No fair. I always waste my time answering yours smile

No you don’t. I’m still waiting for your answer on Christoph Luxenbergs method and on other things. You cherry pick your questions like you cherry pick reality to make your religious worldview fit.

I believe I have responded sufficiently to mostly every misunderstanding or flat out lie you have thrown out about Islam so far. Now, mostly everything you have written above is rehashing the same nonsense, so allow me to excuse myself from responding to it here.

But as to your accusation that I cherry-pick reality, I think you are better of speaking for yourself.

To answer your question however, what can I say? Christoph Luxenberg, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Sam Harris, and the list goes on. Do I really need to respond to every orientalist or atheist, or fanatical Christian who seeks to attack Islam for whatever their motive? I think not. Clearly, the perspective they come from says enough about the views they hold. Perhaps we all cherry-pick? Atheists and skeptics will naturally try to explain religion away so it makes sense to their atheistic world view, and Christians will do likewise in order to explain their worldview. In the end, the question is who’s explaination is most feasable, most truthful?

I believe I have responded sufficiently to mostly every misunderstanding or flat out lie you have thrown out about Islam so far. Now, mostly everything you have written above is rehashing the same nonsense, so allow me to excuse myself from responding to it here.

No you didn’t. You spammed us with worthless apolgetics about the “true islam” of your sect, there was nothing besides propaganda in your writings.
“Rehashing” the same nonsense seemed necessary: you keep on insisting on indiscussible nonsense: the truth of the quran, the holiness of a certain Muhammed of Mekka etc. Those things are not verifiable, you either believe them or not. If you believe them and you also think they enable you to certain actions than you and your religious convictions will be judged by those. But you are right here: there is no use of continuing the discussion on this kind of nonsense.
Your reaction to Luxenberg was quite telling: confronted with real science you resort to name calling, strawmens and ignorant babble. That shows that you are wrong, Jack.

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
—Cultivating Humanity

I believe I have responded sufficiently to mostly every misunderstanding or flat out lie you have thrown out about Islam so far. Now, mostly everything you have written above is rehashing the same nonsense, so allow me to excuse myself from responding to it here.

No you didn’t. You spammed us with worthless apolgetics about the “true islam” of your sect, there was nothing besides propaganda in your writings.
“Rehashing” the same nonsense seemed necessary: you keep on insisting on indiscussible nonsense: the truth of the quran, the holiness of a certain Muhammed of Mekka etc. Those things are not verifiable, you either believe them or not. If you believe them and you also think they enable you to certain actions than you and your religious convictions will be judged by those. But you are right here: there is no use of continuing the discussion on this kind of nonsense.
Your reaction to Luxenberg was quite telling: confronted with real science you resort to name calling, strawmens and ignorant babble. That shows that you are wrong, Jack.

It seems that perhaps your eyes, like your heart, has become blind as well. Otherwise, I don’t know how else to explain your overlooking of the links I have provided above that respond sufficiently to Luxenberg. All the best.